Mary, as I think my colleague Mr. Fletcher mentioned, we admire your passion. You have done a lot of work on it, and it's coming across as you answer all of our questions.
Once again, I do want to reiterate that we are trying to convey, and perhaps we are the messengers in this case, what we have heard from a number of stakeholders. They feel not that their suggestions have not been implemented--because none of us has seen the final food guide that will come out, and neither have they--but that they are frustrated with the type of consultation that was done, which was not on substance. You have given a couple of examples, in your answers, about the energy, the sodium and the salt content, but the frustration of stakeholders has been with the fact that they were not consulted on the substance of the issue. Their frustration has been with the type of consultation to which they were invited, despite their particular area of expertise.
I just want to have three questions answered very quickly.
First, you have no hesitation in putting forward to this committee and tabling a draft copy of the food guide? That's the first question. If you have forwarded it to the minister, are you okay with the committee's having a preview of it? That's the first question.
Second, we've asked for a list of the individuals who were invited for consultation, i.e., stakeholders, organizations, or individuals.
Third, could you forward to the committee both the type of questions, the nature of questions that they were asked or consulted on, and their responses and submissions?
You initially mentioned in November 2005 that you had forwarded information with regard to the food guide, which I assume would be at the pre-consultation stage. Could we perhaps have that tabled once again and then, after consultation, see what the food guide, which is in draft at the moment, looks like?